Letters To The Editor

September 16, 2004

Sad Situation

For Animals

Regarding the Sept. 14 article ``Out Of Their Element'' [Life section]: What a poignant title for that story. Thank God I'm not the only American who loathes zoos. And thanks to photographer Frank Noelker for bringing this sad situation to the public's attention through his book ``Captive Beauty: Zoo Portraits by Frank Noelker.''

I consider myself an animal lover and would enjoy nothing more than sharing a Saturday afternoon in the company of wildlife. However, I have made a conscious choice to not frequent zoos for those reasons outlined in The Courant's article.

My final trip to a zoo was about four years ago. I happened upon a majestic polar bear sitting on a synthetic ice block, panting in 90 degree weather. As we know, polar bears are indigenous to arctic settings and love nothing more than swimming among icebergs while hunting for seals. How anyone could walk by that ``exhibit'' with their children and smile and feel good about the situation is beyond me.

Our society forgets about the dire outcomes of our selfish interests. The same mindset is found in people who frequent circuses. How often do you see a bear riding a bicycle in nature?

Next time you go to a zoo, if you still choose to, take a closer look into the animals' eyes and decide if they're as happy being there as you are. I think not.

Brenna N. Galdenzi

Rocky Hill

Compelling

Letter On 9/11

Duane Orloske's letter of Sept. 11 [``Going Down The Wrong Path After 9/11''] was articulate and especially compelling coming from someone whose wife was killed on 9/11.

Thanks to Mr. Orloske for evoking again that wondrous few days of worldwide solidarity following the attacks. Thanks, too, for describing so well how our country's choices since then are eroding its honor and stature in the world.

When Mr. Orloske states that our recent national behavior dishonors his wife and the other victims, let's consider his views carefully. When even the victims plead for compassion and healing rather than vengeance, it's powerful stuff.

Joan Kennedy

Farmington

No Precedent

For Modern Guns

On Monday, the federal ban on assault rifles expired. Supporters of unrestricted possession of firearms quote the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution on their right to bear arms.

When the Constitution was written, a citizen's most powerful firearm was a flintlock rifle. Properly interpreted, I believe the Second Amendment reads that the right of the people to keep and bear flintlocks shall not be infringed.

Machine guns and assault rifles? Not what the framers envisioned and clearly not covered by the Constitution. Bolt action and lever action repeater rifles? These are 19th-century devices and outlawed. Revolvers and single-shot percussion cap weapons? Clearly post-1789 and illegal. In contrast, any weapon that predates the flintlock is permitted. A 17th-century wheel lock is perfectly legal. A matchlock blunderbuss? No problem.

For those hunters and sportsmen who feel the need for multiple-shot capability, the answer is simple. Buy two flintlocks.

Charles Gagliardi

West Hartford

Firearm Foes

Distort Facts

The Sept. 13 Other Opinion article on the assault weapons ban [``Gun Profits For Votes: It's Enough To Make You Sick''] by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., provides an example of how anti-firearm advocates distort facts to favor their argument.

One design feature of so-called assault weapons is a flash suppressor at the muzzle. Sen. Feinstein correctly stated, ``A flash suppressor is used to prevent the flash of the gun when it is fired.'' However, her additional statement, that use of this device on the firearm prevents the person who is firing the gun from being detected by the muzzle flash (especially at night), is just not true.

The online encyclopedia at TheFreeDictionary.com provides the following: ``It is commonly thought that [flash suppressors] are used on military rifles to reduce visibility to the enemy, but the size of a device necessary to hide the muzzle flash from an enemy during the night would be prohibitive. Flash suppressors are designed to hide the muzzle flash from the shooter to preserve his or her night vision, usually by directing the incandescent gasses downward, away from the line of sight of the shooter. Military forces engaging in night combat are still quite visible, and must move quickly after firing to avoid return fire.''

If she is wrong about this simple fact, how many other firearms-related facts has she also misunderstood?